Endless Internet Argument - A Summertime Tradition

[reinko]

Please let me save everyone the trouble.

Chico's:  NLI RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE HONOR RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE DJ SCREWED RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
Avid, Lens, Lenny...: FULL STORY UNKNOWN RABBLE RABBLE NO APPLICATION RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

And repeat.

[rocky_warrior]

Simply put, MU recruited over Newbill. No other way to spin it. Old timers like myself are just going to have to get used to today's recruiting tactics. In a sense, it's no different than the recruit asking for his release and "screwing" over the coach. Happens at virtually every school today and I'm certain will occur again at Marquette when the opportunity arises.

4ever, I'm sorry to inform you we've found and older and grouchier Old Timer to replace you on MUScoop.  We wish you the best and will work with you to find a new message board to be old and grouchy on.  I hear the Southern Miss message board may have some openings.

[TJ]

The rule says that if this type of improper contact takes place, the player is ineligible to attend that particular school.  So technically, it's not a violation unless he comes here.

I would like to say that sounds awfully incorrect to me.  Either a violation has occurred or it hasn't.  I find it very hard to believe there's a technicality letting a school/coach/institution off the hook for improper recruiting when the kid chooses another school.

If he comes here, it's a violation and he can't come here.  If he doesn't come there's no violation, so now he can come.  But if he can come, then there's a violation and he can't come...  We've got ourselves a classic catch-22 going on right there.

Also, to those that have been saying all along that there isn't enough evidence to support any claims of impropriety against the school - how is there any evidence whatsoever to back up the idea that he was let go because of ineligibility due to minor recruiting violations?  Why aren't more people jumping on this and calling it out as unsubstantiated?

[Benny B]

Let me be as succinct as possible.

MU should not be accepting NLI's unless they plan on honoring them.    

Chicos... you should have stopped right there.  I would have given you a hug and bought you a beer, maybe two.

I hope we do a hell of a better job in the future in keeping the very simple premise as it would avoid and of this nonsense that the school has had to go through.

Again - and I hate sounding like a broken record - what's to say that DJ Newbill didn't ask for his release first?  The possibility exists that Buzz did nothing wrong here, and it's not an unreasonable scenario.  Maybe DJ was the one who wanted to void the NLI a few weeks ago.  Maybe Buzz tried to work things out and get him to stay.  Maybe Buzz was 100% committed to DJ but kept the window open with Jamil just in case.  Who knows?  Buzz certainly can't tell his side of the story, and even if he could, he's not going to throw the kid under the bus just to appease the minority of people who are questioning his motives.

We can all speculate who said what, when it was said, etc, etc.  The fact of the matter is, honor your NLI or simply don't accept it for a kid you're not sure about, and this situation doesn't happen, the conjecture \ speculation doesn't happen, etc.  

And that's what I'm doing - I'm speculating the opposite position in order to demonstrate that it isn't as cut and dry as you and others are making it out to be.  I understand that it might come across like I'm defending Buzz, but I am absolutely not advocating that Buzz isn't at fault here.

All I am saying is that Buzz may be anywhere from 0%-100% at fault.  As a Catholic, as an MU alum, as a season ticket holder, I think that regardless of what I believe to be the truth but as long as I do not know for certain, that disclaimer needs to be made; otherwise, I am doing a disservice to Buzz Williams even if he did breach a moral standard.  But that's just my opinion... you're welcome to disagree with that.  But you can't disagree with the 0%-100% unless you have something you're withholding.

EDIT: By "something," I mean something indisputable, tangible, a smoking gun, etc.  Not an opinion.

[Lennys Tap]

Please let me save everyone the trouble.

Chico's:  NLI RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE HONOR RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE DJ SCREWED RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
Avid, Lens, Lenny...: FULL STORY UNKNOWN RABBLE RABBLE NO APPLICATION RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

And repeat.

Funny and dead on. In my defense I've twice taken Chicos up on his request to "honestly" answer a question and get no real response in return.

[avid1010]

If it wouldn't get the kid kicked out of school, it shouldnt get an LOI rescinded. That also takes care of all this recruiting irregularity nonsense.

Really?  So a kid could refuse to come to summer workouts, smoke dope, call Buzz and request money be given to his people, have his dad show up at MU functions/practices and insist his son be the number one option, multiple underage drinking tickets, maybe some drunken driving, etc. but we should still honor the NLI?

[bilsu]

I would like to say that sounds awfully incorrect to me. Either a violation has occurred or it hasn't.  I find it very hard to believe there's a technicality letting a school/coach/institution off the hook for improper recruiting when the kid chooses another school.

If he comes here, it's a violation and he can't come here.  If he doesn't come there's no violation, so now he can come.  But if he can come, then there's a violation and he can't come...  We've got ourselves a classic catch-22 going on right there.

Also, to those that have been saying all along that there isn't enough evidence to support any claims of impropriety against the school - how is there any evidence whatsoever to back up the idea that he was let go because of ineligibility due to minor recruiting violations? Why aren't more people jumping on this and calling it out as unsubstantiated?

It is only a violation for MU if they play an ineligible player. For example there was that guard that came in with the Big three that redshirted. He supposedly bet on MU NCAA tournament game, which made him ineligible. Crean took away his scholarship as required. No violation for MU, because they did not play an ineligible player. Compare that to Memphis and possibility Kentucky who played players that were ineligible based on the assumption they cheated on their ACT tests.

[brewcity77]

I will be so happy when the season starts and we can focus on actual Marquette basketball

[Dawson Rental]

Is this that Easter Bunny and Santa Claus thing all over again?

God damn it, 4everwarriors --- I don't give a F what you say, The Easter Bunny and Santa Claus ARE related!

[77ncaachamps]

If he comes here, it's a violation and he can't come here.  If he doesn't come there's no violation, so now he can come.  But if he can come, then there's a violation and he can't come...  We've got ourselves a classic catch-22 going on right there.

Had to strike sentences out because it doesn't make any sense at all.

Other than that, there's really NO Catch-22: "violation" occurs -> release the player from LOI -> no penalty.

Now, there are some events around his release which are the center of speculation...

[pbiflyer]

Here we go again.  Your black and white rules don't work.  You need to add stipulations of when it's alright to back out of a NLI and when it's not.  If the kid does something illegal and gets caught?  If a kid continues to pursue other schools?  If a kid is told the scholarship might not stand?  If a kid doesn't get his paperwork in? 

Actually, his black and white rules work perfectly. A booster had documented contact with a recruit, making that recruit ineligible to come to Marquette. Newbill was unable to attend Marquette. Marquette then had an open scholarship. They chose to use it on the transfer Wilson.
Those are all facts. Everything else is pure conjecture.

[GGGG]

Actually, his black and white rules work perfectly. A booster had documented contact with a recruit, making that recruit ineligible to come to Marquette. Newbill was unable to attend Marquette. Marquette then had an open scholarship. They chose to use it on the transfer Wilson.
Those are all facts. Everything else is pure conjecture.

You love to throw the conjecture word around...but you are the one making assumptions that the reason that Newbill isn't here is because of some sort of violation versus the basketball abilities of him and Wilson.

[ATL MU Warrior]

You love to throw the conjecture word around...but you are the one making assumptions that the reason that Newbill isn't here is because of some sort of violation versus the basketball abilities of him and Wilson.

So...you think the AD for compliance showing up on this board and reminding people not to have contact with recruits, make and post videos, etc. has nothing to do with the reason why DJ isn't at Marquette?  Is that just a smoke screen created by the athletic dept. to mess with our minds? 

I don't know the real reason he's here and neither do you.  But based on what we know, the violation is real, right? 

[bma725]

So...you think the AD for compliance showing up on this board and reminding people not to have contact with recruits, make and post videos, etc. has nothing to do with the reason why DJ isn't at Marquette?  Is that just a smoke screen created by the athletic dept. to mess with our minds?  

If that were actually the case, don't you think they would have shown up a few months earlier when the initial interview appeared on the site?

But based on what we know, the violation is real, right?  

Based on what we know, there isn't enough information to determine that one way or another and people are jumping off the deep end screaming violation.  

[avid1010]

Actually, his black and white rules work perfectly. A booster had documented contact with a recruit, making that recruit ineligible to come to Marquette. Newbill was unable to attend Marquette. Marquette then had an open scholarship. They chose to use it on the transfer Wilson.
Those are all facts. Everything else is pure conjecture.

That's possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard.  If every recruit who ever had contact with a booster was not allowed to come on campus I don't believe any serious D1 team would have a team to put on the court next year.  That rule is not black and white, and for good reason.

[TJ]

If that were actually the case, don't you think they would have shown up a few months earlier when the initial interview appeared on the site?

Based on what we know, there isn't enough information to determine that one way or another and people are jumping off the deep end screaming violation.  

+1

[Benny B]

Based on what we know, there isn't enough information to determine that one way or another and people are jumping off the deep end screaming violation.  

True... but there's just as many people diving into the shallow end screaming "buzzcut."

Perhaps we should all be taking the steps into the pool instead.

[TJ]

True... but there's just as many people diving into the shallow end screaming "buzzcut."

Perhaps we should all be taking the steps into the pool instead.

True, but people that were screaming "not enough information!" before, but are now willing to latch on to "violations!" based on just as circumstantial evidence are showing that they weren't really interested in "waiting for the whole story to come out" all along.

[reinko]

[mu_hilltopper]

So...you think the AD for compliance showing up on this board and reminding people not to have contact with recruits, make and post videos, etc. has nothing to do with the reason why DJ isn't at Marquette?  Is that just a smoke screen created by the athletic dept. to mess with our minds?  

I don't know the real reason he's here and neither do you.  But based on what we know, the violation is real, right?  

Answer:

If that were actually the case, don't you think they would have shown up a few months earlier when the initial interview appeared on the site?

Based on what we know, there isn't enough information to determine that one way or another and people are jumping off the deep end screaming violation.  

and:

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21078.msg225202#msg225202

Sorry.  The idea that any sort of violation somehow factors in to the Newbill situation is not based in reason.  On top of what BMA said (who is the most connected person in the room) .. if it were true, Marquette would have leaked it to IWB, and it would have been in his explanation of Newbill's story.

Hell, had a violation occurred that had anything to do with Newbill being gone, Marquette would have OFFICIALLY rolled out that story, instead of allowing IWB to tell it -- which would have squashed all of the negative conjecture.   Instead of MU being thought of as a program that over-signs, it would have been a story of how Marquette follows the rules.

[Skatastrophy]

...head banging on wall pic...

Pssh...

[Canadian Dimes]

Let me be as succinct as possible.

MU should not be accepting NLI's unless they plan on honoring them.  I hope we do a hell of a better job in the future in keeping the very simple premise as it would avoid and of this nonsense that the school has had to go through.

We can all speculate who said what, when it was said, etc, etc.  The fact of the matter is, honor your NLI or simply don't accept it for a kid you're not sure about, and this situation doesn't happen, the conjecture \ speculation doesn't happen, etc. 

If MU's greatest coach in the last 30 years, which is the phrase you always use, can do it (Saunders).  Why cant Buzz, whom you hope can be as successful as Cream.   Seems it is acceptable as long as you are getting the pleasure of a reach around.  Yet unacceptable for a guy you did not think should be hired. 

[MerrittsMustache]

After doing extensive research and sifting through all these posts, I've finally figured out the definitive truth! Stay with me on this one...

No matter what we think happened or how we feel about the situation or who we think was at fault, Jamil Wilson is going to be a student-athlete at Marquette and DJ Newbill is going to be a student-athlete at Southern Miss.


Be honest. That just blew your mind, didn't it?

[Benny B]

True, but people that were screaming "not enough information!" before, but are now willing to latch on to "violations!" based on just as circumstantial evidence are showing that they weren't really interested in "waiting for the whole story to come out" all along.

The whole story may never come out... at least not anytime in the foreseeable future.  Everyone has their own opinions of what happened, and that's fine.  But nobody should be holding themselves out as knowing the truth when in fact, they don't.

Speculation is fine, as long as you make it clear that you're speculating.

[ATL MU Warrior]

True, but people that were screaming "not enough information!" before, but are now willing to latch on to "violations!" based on just as circumstantial evidence are showing that they weren't really interested in "waiting for the whole story to come out" all along.

What BS.  Read my post.  I clearly said I don't know what happened and neither does anybody else on this board.  And we're never going to get the entire story. 

BUT, if someone wants to argue that it's all about Wilson being a better player, there is enough "info" out there to argue that it could just as well be about breaking some stupid no-contact rule. 

The whole point is nobody knows...and I'm NOT saying it's one or the other because, unlike some other people on this board, I realize I don't have all the info to draw any sort of conclusion and I'm not suffiiciently ego-maniacal to think that I do. 

Thanks